Taylor, Bron. “Resacralizing Earth: Pagan Environmental-ism and the Restoration of Turtle Island.” In AmericanSacred Space. David Chidester and Edward. T.Linenthal, eds. Bloomington: Indiana University Press,1995, 97–151.

See also: Abbey, Edward; Black Mesa; Church ofEuthanasia; Earth First! and the Earth Liberation Front;Green Death Movement; Jeffers, John Robinson; RadicalEnvironmentalism.

Deep Ecology

Norwegian philosopher Arne Naess (b. 1912) coined theterm “Deep Ecology” in 1972 to express the idea thatnature has intrinsic value, namely, value apart from itsusefulness to human beings, and that all life forms shouldbe allowed to flourish and fulfill their evolutionary des-tinies. Naess invented the rubric to contrast such viewswith what he considered to be “shallow” environmen-talism, namely, environmental concern rooted only inconcern for humans. The term has since come to signifyboth its advocates’ deeply felt spiritual connections to theEarth’s living systems and ethical obligations to protectthem, as well as the global environmental movement thatbears its name. Moreover, some deep ecologists posit closeconnections between certain streams in world religionsand deep ecology.

Naess and most deep ecologists, however, trace theirperspective to personal experiences of connection toand wholeness in wild nature, experiences which are theground of their intuitive, affective perception of thesacredness and interconnection of all life. Those who haveexperienced such a transformation of consciousness(experiencing what is sometimes called one’s “ecologicalself” in these movements) view the self not as separatefrom and superior to all else, but rather as a small partof the entire cosmos. From such experience flows the con-clusion that all life and even ecosystems themselves haveinherent or intrinsic value – that is, value independently ofwhether they are useful to humans.

Although Naess coined the term, many deep ecologistscredit the American ecologist Aldo Leopold with suc-cinctly expressing such a deep ecological worldview in hisnow famous “Land Ethic” essay, which was publishedposthumously in A Sand County Almanac in 1948.Leopold argued that humans ought to act only in waysdesigned to protect the long-term flourishing of allecosystems and each of their constituent parts.

Many deep ecologists call their perspective alter-natively “ecocentrism” or “biocentrism” (to convey,respectively, an ecosystem-centered or life-centered valuesystem). As importantly, they believe humans have sodegraded the biosphere that its life-sustaining systems arebreaking down. They trace this tragic situation to anthro-

pocentrism (human-centeredness), which values natureexclusively in terms of its usefulness to humans. Anthro-pocentrism, in turn, is viewed as grounded in Westernreligion and philosophy, which many deep ecologistsbelieve must be rejected (or a deep ecological transform-ation of consciousness within them must occur) if humansare to learn to live sustainably on the Earth.

Thus, many deep ecologists believe that only by“resacralizing” our perceptions of the natural world canwe put ecosystems above narrow human interests andlearn to live harmoniously with the natural world, therebyaverting ecological catastrophe. It is a common perceptionwithin the deep ecology movement that the religions ofindigenous cultures, the world’s remnant and newlyrevitalized or invented pagan religions, and religionsoriginating in Asia (especially Daoism, Buddhism, andHinduism) provide superior grounds for ecological ethics,and greater ecological wisdom, than do Occidentalreligions. Theologians such as Matthew Fox and ThomasBerry, however, have shown that Western religions such asChristianity may be interpreted in ways largely compatiblewith the deep ecology movement.

Although Naess coined the umbrella term, which is nowa catchphrase for most non-anthropocentric environ-mental ethics, a number of Americans were also criticizinganthropocentrism and laying the foundation for themovement’s ideas at about the same time as Naess wascoining the term. One crucial event early in deep ecology’sevolution was the 1974 “Rights of Non-Human Nature”conference held at a college in Claremont, California.Inspired by Christopher Stone’s influential 1972 law article(and subsequent book) Should Trees Have Standing? –Toward Legal Rights for Natural Objects, the conferencedrew many of those who would become the intellectualarchitects of deep ecology. These included George Sessionswho, like Naess, drew on Spinoza’s pantheism, later co-authoring Deep Ecology with Bill Devall; Gary Snyder,whose remarkable, Pulitzer prize-winning TurtleIsland proclaimed the value of place-based spiritualities,indigenous cultures, and animistic perceptions, ideas thatwould become central within deep ecology subcultures;and the late Paul Shepard (d. 1996), who in The TenderCarnivore and the Sacred Game, and subsequent workssuch as Nature and Madness and the posthumouslypublished Coming Back to the Pleistocene, argued thatforaging societies were ecologically superior to and emo-tionally healthier than agricultural societies. Shepard andSnyder especially provided a cosmogony that explainedhumanity’s fall from a pristine, natural paradise. Alsoextremely influential was Edward Abbey’s Desert Solitaire,which viewed the desert as a sacred place uniquely able toevoke in people a proper, non-anthropocentric under-standing of the value of nature. By the early 1970s theabove figures put in place the intellectual foundations ofdeep ecology.

456 Deep Ecology

Deep Ecology PlatformFormulated by Arne Naess and George Sessions in April1984, during a camping trip in Death Valley, California,the Deep Ecology Platform (DEP) seeks to be agreeable toenvironmentalists from many different persuasions.Individuals may derive the DEP from their own ultimatepremises and ecosophies (a term Naess coined for “eco-logical philosophy”), Buddhism, Christianity, Spinozism,or ecofeminism, or they may arrive at the DEP as a resultof deep questioning that moves from particular situ-ations toward more general norms and consequences.The DEP has been criticized, for example, by thosewho fear that its fourth plank, regarding populationreduction, could be used to justify draconian birth-control methods. In general, however, the DEP has wonassent from many environmentalists.

The eight-point platform may be summarized in thisway:

1. Human and nonhuman life alike have inherent value.2. Richness and diversity of life contribute to realizing

these values, and are themselves valuable.3. Humans have no right to reduce richness or diversity

except to satisfy vital needs.4. Human life can flourish with a substantial reduction

in human population, which is needed for theflourishing of nonhuman life.

5. Present human interference with the nonhumanworld is already excessive and is worsening.

6. Economic, technological, and ideological policiesmust be changed, in a way that leads to states ofaffairs deeply different from the present.

7. The ideological change must involve appreciating theinherent value of all life, rather than continuallyincreasing the material living standard.

8. Those who subscribe to the foregoing points have anobligation to implement the necessary changes.

Michael E. Zimmerman

A corresponding movement soon followed and grewrapidly, greatly influencing grassroots environmentalism,especially in Europe, North America, and Australia.Shortly after forming in 1980, for example, leaders of thepolitically radical Earth First! movement (the exclamationpoint is part of its name) learned about Deep Ecology, andimmediately embraced it as their own spiritual philosophy.Meanwhile, the green lifestyle-focused movement knownas bioregionalism also began to embody a deep ecologyworldview. Given their natural affinities it was notlong before bioregionalism became the prevailing socialphilosophy among deep ecologists.

As a philosophy and as a movement, deep ecologyspread in many ways. During the 1980s and early 1990s,for example, Bill Devall and George Sessions publishedtheir influential book, Deep Ecology: Living as if NatureMattered; Warwick Fox in Toward a Transpersonal Ecol-ogy linked deep ecology with transpersonal psychology,thereby furthering the development of what is now calledecopsychology; David Rothenberg translated and editedArne Naess’s important work, Ecology, Community andLifestyle; and Michael E. Zimmerman interpreted MartinHeidegger as a forerunner of deep ecology, thus helping tospark a trend of calling upon contemporary Europeanthinkers for insight into environmental issues. Many deepecologists have complained, however, that the postmodernthinking imported from Europe has undermined the statusof “nature,” defined by deep ecologists as a whole thatincludes but exists independently of humankind.

Radical environmentalist activists, including theAmerican co-founder of Earth First!, Dave Foreman, andthe Australian co-founder of the Rainforest InformationCentre, John Seed, beginning in the early 1980s, con-

ducted “road shows” to transform consciousness and pro-mote environmental action. Such events usually involvespeeches and music designed to evoke or reinforcepeoples’ felt connections to nature, and inspires action.Often, they also include photographic presentations con-trasting intact and revered ecosystems with degraded anddefiled lands.

Some activists have designed ritual processes to furtherdeepen participants’ spiritual connections to nature andpolitical commitment to defend it. Joanna Macy and anumber of others, including John Seed, for example,developed a ritual process known as the Council of AllBeings, which endeavors to get activists to see the worldfrom the perspective of nonhuman entities. Since theearly 1980s, traveling widely around the world, Seed haslabored especially hard spreading deep ecology throughthis and other newly invented ritual processes. The move-ment has also been disseminated through the writings ofits architects (often reaching college students in environ-mental studies courses); through journalists reportingon deep ecology-inspired environmental protests anddirect action resistance; and through the work of novelists,poets, musicians, and other artists, who promote in theirwork deep ecological perceptions. Recent expressions inecotourism can be seen, for example, in the “Deep EcologyElephant Project,” which includes tours in both Asia andAfrica, and suggest that elephants and other wildlife havemuch to teach their human kin.

Deep Ecology has been criticized by people represent-ing social ecology, socialist ecology, liberal democracy,and ecofeminism. Murray Bookchin, architect of theanarchistic green social philosophy known as SocialEcology, engaged in sometimes vituperative attacks on

Deep Ecology 457

deep ecology and its activist vanguard, Earth First!,for being intellectually incoherent, ignorant of socio-economic factors in environmental problems, and given tomysticism and misanthropy. Bookchin harshly criticizedEarth First! co-founder Dave Foreman for suggestingthat starvation was a solution to human overpopulationand environmental deterioration. Later, however,Bookchin and Foreman engaged in a more constructivedialogue. Meanwhile, socialist ecologists maintain thatdeep ecology overemphasizes cultural factors (world-views, religion, philosophy) in diagnosing the roots of,and solutions to, environmental problems, therebyminimizing the roles played by the social, political, andeconomic factors inherent in global capitalism.

Liberal democrats such as the French scholar Luc Ferry(1995) maintain that deep ecology is incapable of pro-viding guidance in moral decision making. Insofar as deepecology fails adequately to recognize that human life hasmore value than other life forms, he argues, it promotes“ecofascism,” namely the sacrifice of individual humansfor the benefit of the ecological whole, what Leopoldtermed “the land.” (Ecofascism in its most extreme formlinks the racial purity of a people to the well-being of thenation’s land; calls for the removal or killing of non-native peoples; and may also justify profound individualand collective sacrifice of its own people for the health ofthe natural environment.) Many environmental philo-sophers have defended Leopold’s land ethic, and by exten-sion, deep ecology, against such charges, most notablyone of the pioneers of contemporary environmentalphilosophy, J. Baird Callicott.

Although some ecofeminists indicate sympathy withdeep ecology’s basic goal, namely, protecting naturalphenomena from human destruction, others have sharplycriticized deep ecology. Male, white, and middle-classdeep ecologists, Ariel Salleh maintains, ignore how patri-archal beliefs, attitudes, practices, and institutions help togenerate environmental problems. Val Plumwood and JimCheney criticize deep ecology’s idea of expanding theself so as to include and thus to have a basis for protectingnonhuman phenomena. This “ecological self” allegedlyconstitutes a totalizing view that obliterates legitimate dis-tinctions between self and other. Moreover, Plumwoodargues, deep ecology unwisely follows the rationalisttradition in basing moral decisions on “impartial identifi-cation,” a practice that does not allow for the highly par-ticular attachments that often motivate environmentalistsand indigenous people alike to care for local places.

Warwick Fox has replied that impartial and wideridentification does not cancel out particular or personalattachments, but instead, puts them in the context of moreencompassing concerns that are otherwise ignored, aswhen for example concern for one’s family blinds one toconcerns about concerns of the community. Fox adds thatdeep ecology criticizes the ideology – anthropocentrism –

that has always been used to by social agents to legitimateoppression of groups regarded as sub- or nonhuman.While modern liberation movements have sought toinclude more and more people into the class of fullhumans, such movements have typically not criticizedanthropocentrism as such. Even a fully egalitarian society,in other words, could continue to use anthropocentrism tojustify exploiting the nonhuman realm.

In response to the claim that deep ecology is, orthreatens to be, a totalizing worldview that excludes alter-natives and that – ironically – threatens cultural diversity,Arne Naess responds that, to the contrary, deep ecology isconstituted by multiple perspectives or “ecosophies” (eco-logical philosophies) and is compatible with a wide rangeof religious perspectives and philosophical orientations.

Another critic, best-selling author Ken Wilber, arguesthat by portraying humankind as merely one strand in theweb of life, deep ecology adheres to a one-dimensional, or“flatland” metaphysics (1995). Paradoxically, by assertingthat material nature constitutes the whole of whichhumans are but a part, deep ecologists agree in importantrespects with modern naturalism, according to whichhumankind is a clever animal capable of and justified indominating other life forms in the struggle for survivaland power. According to Wilber, a “deeper” ecology woulddiscern that the cosmos is hierarchically ordered in termsof complexity, and that respect and compassion are due allphenomena because they are manifestations of the divine.

In the last analysis, for Naess, it is personal experiencesof a profound connection with nature and related per-ceptions of nature’s inherent worth or sacredness, whichgive rise to deep ecological commitments. Naess believessuch commitments may be derived from a wide variety ofultimate premises, religious and philosophical, so as toform a particular ecosophy. Ecosophies that identify them-selves as part of the Deep Ecology Movement are con-sistent with the eight-point, Deep Ecology Platform, whichNaess developed with George Sessions in 1984.

Although controversial and contested, both internallyand among its proponents and its critics, deep ecologyis an increasingly influential green spirituality and ethicsthat is universally recognized in environmentalistenclaves, and increasingly outside of such subcultures, asa radical movement challenging the conventional, usuallyanthropocentric ways humans deal with the natural world.Its influence in environmental philosophy has been pro-found, for even those articulating alternative environ-mental ethics are compelled to respond to its insistencethat nature has intrinsic and even sacred value, and itschallenge to anthropocentrism.

Its greatest influence, however, may be through thediverse forms of environmental activism that it inspires,action that increasingly shapes world environmental poli-tics. Not only is deep ecology the prevailing spiritualityof bioregionalism and radical environmentalism; it also

458 Deep Ecology

undergirds the International Forum on Globalization andthe Ruckus Society, two organizations playing key rolesin the anti-globalization protests that erupted in 1999.Both of these groups are generously funded by the SanFrancisco-based Foundation for Deep Ecology, and otherfoundations, which share deep ecological perceptions.

Such developments reflect a growing impulse towardinstitutionalization, which is designed to promote deepecology and intensify environmental action. There arenow Institutes for Deep Ecology in London, England andOccidental, California, a Sierra Nevada Deep EcologyInstitute in Nevada City, California, and dozens of otherorganizations in the United States, Oceania, and Europe,which provide ritual-infused experiences in deep ecologyand training for environmental activists. It is not, however,the movement’s institutions, but instead the participants’love for the living Earth, along with their widespreadapocalypticism (their conviction that the world as weknow it is imperiled or doomed), that give the move-ment its urgent passion to promote earthen spirituality,sustainable living, and environmental activism.

Bron TaylorMichael Zimmerman

Further ReadingAbbey, Edward. Desert Solitaire. Tucson: University of

Arizona Press, 1988.Abram, David. Spell of the Sensuous: Perception and

Language in a More-Than-Human World. New York:Pantheon, 1996.

Barnhill, David and Roger Gottlieb. Deep Ecology andWorld Religions. Albany: SUNY Press, 2001.

Bender, Frederic. The Culture of Extinction: Toward aPhilosophy of Deep Ecology. Buffalo, New York:Humanity, 2003.

Bookchin, Murray. “Social Ecology versus ‘DeepEcology.’ ” Green Perspectives 4–5 (Summer 1987).

Bookchin, Murray and Dave Foreman. Defending theEarth. Boston: South End Press, 1991.

Callicott, J. Baird. “Holistic Environmental Ethics and theProblem of Ecofascism.” Beyond the Land Ethic: MoreEssays in Environmental Philosophy. Albany, NY:SUNY Press, 1999.

Cheney, Jim. “Eco-Feminism and Deep Ecology.”Environmental Ethics 9 (Summer 1987), 115–45.

Devall, Bill. Simple in Means, Rich in Ends: PracticingDeep Ecology. Salt Lake City, UT: Peregrine Smith,1988.

Devall, Bill and George Sessions. Deep Ecology: Living AsIf Nature Mattered. Salt Lake City, UT: PeregrineSmith, 1985.

Drengson, Alan and Yuichi Inoue, eds. The Deep EcologyMovement: An Introductory Anthology. Berkeley,California: North Atlantic, 1995.

Ferry, Luc. The New Ecological Order. Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press, 1995.

Fox, Matthew. The Coming of the Cosmic Christ: TheHealing of Mother Earth and the Birth of a GlobalRenaissance. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988.

Fox, Warwick. Toward a Transpersonal Ecology. Boston:Shambhala, 1990.

Fox, Warwick. “The Deep Ecology Ecofeminism Debateand Its Parallels.” Environmental Ethics 11 (Spring1989), 5–25.

Katz, Eric, Andrew Light and David Rothenberg. Beneaththe Surface: Critical Essays on Deep Ecology. Cam-bridge: The MIT Press, 2000.

LaChapelle, Dolores. Sacred Land, Sacred Sex: Rapture ofthe Deep. Silverton, CO: Finn Hill Arts, 1988.

LaChapelle, Dolores. Earth Wisdom. Silverton, CO: FinnHill Arts, 1978.

Macy, Joanna. World As Lover, World As Self. Berkeley,CA: Parallax Press, 1991.

Manes, Christopher. Green Rage: Radical Environmen-talism and the Unmaking of Civilization. Boston: Little,Brown, 1990.

Naess, Arne. Ecology, Community and Lifestyle. D. Rothen-berg, ed., tr. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1989.

Naess, Arne. “The Shallow and the Deep, Long-RangeEcology Movement: A Summary.” Inquiry 16 (1973),95–100.

Plumwood, Val. “Nature, Self, and Gender: Feminism,Environmental Philosophy, and the Critique of Ration-alism.” Hypatia 6 (Spring 1991), 3–27.

Salleh, Ariel. “The Ecofeminism/Deep Ecology Debate: AReply to Patriarchal Reason.” Environmental Ethics 3(Fall 1992), 195–216.

Seed, John, Joanna Macy, Pat Fleming and Arne Naess.Thinking Like a Mountain: Towards a Council of AllBeings. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: New Society, 1988.

Sessions, George, ed. Deep Ecology for the 21st Century.Boston: Shambhala Publications, 1995.

Shepard, Paul. Coming Home to the Pleistocene. SanFrancisco: Island Press, 1998.

Snyder, Gary. The Practice of the Wild. San Francisco:North Point Press, 1990.

Snyder, Gary. Turtle Island. New York: New Directions,1969.

Stone, Christopher. “Should Trees Have Standing? –Toward Legal Rights for Natural Objects.” So. Califor-nia Law Review 45 (Spring 1972), 450–501.

Stone, Christopher. Should Trees Have Standing? LosAltos, CA: William Kaufmann, 1974.

Taylor, Bron, “Deep Ecology as Social Philosophy: ACritique.” In Eric Katz, Andrew Light and DavidRothenberg, eds. Beneath the Surface: Critical Essayson Deep Ecology. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MITPress, 2000, 269–99.

Deep Ecology 459

Taylor, Bron, ed. Ecological Resistance Movements: TheGlobal Emergence of Radical and Popular Environ-mentalism. Albany, New York: State University ofNew York Press, 1995.

Tobias, Michael, ed. Deep Ecology. San Diego: AvantBooks, 1985.

Wilber, Ken. Sex, Ecology, Spirituality. Boston: Shamb-hakala, 1995.

Zimmerman, Michael E. Contesting Earth’s Future:Radical Ecology and Postmodernity. Berkeley and LosAngeles: University of California Press, 1994.

Zimmerman, Michael E. “Rethinking the Heidegger – DeepEcology Relationship.” Environmental Ethics 15 (Fall1993), 195–224.

Zimmerman, Michael E. “Toward a Heideggerean Ethosfor Radical Environmentalism.” Environmental Ethics5 (Summer 1983), 99–132.

See also: Abbey, Edward; Bioregionalism; Ecopsychology;Ecosophy T; Environmental Ethics; Naess, Arne; RadicalEnvironmentalism; Seed, John; Shepard, Paul; Snyder,Gary; Wilber, Ken.

Deep Ecology, Institute for

If religion is “that dimension of human experienceengaged with sacred norms [and] ultimate concerns, asDavid Chidester (1987: 4) has argued, then the Institutefor Deep Ecology (IDE) can be viewed as a religiousmovement that reveres the Earth and promotes environ-mental activism in its defense. The Institute’s websitestates that deep ecology is “a philosophy based on oursacred relationship with Earth and all beings; an inter-national movement for a viable future; a path forself-realization; (and) a compass for daily action.”Without specifically defining what is meant by “sacred,”the site indicates that it seeks to “honor spirit” byacknowledging that the relationship between human-kind and the natural world is a matter of ultimate concernand that to speak of the interdependence of all beings inthe natural world is to engage in a description of ultimatereality.

Such understandings undergird the organization’smission to promote “well-being of the whole web oflife.” In 2002 the Institute’s website stated that it does thisthrough

ecological values and actions. At our core is a rec-ognition of and reverence for the interdependenceand inherent value of all life. To nourish these valuesin ourselves and the world, we provide opportunitiesfor inquiry and practice through workshops, publi-cations, and support networks. We seek to encour-age and empower people to do good work in theirhome communities.

These intentions lead to actions, some of which have amarked ritual nature (such as the Council of All Beings),and are designed to foster awareness of the intercon-nectedness of all things, and to derive promote strategicenvironmental action.

The institute was initially co-founded in 1992 byFran and Joanna Macy, in close association with BillDevall, Stephanie Kaza, Elias Amidon, Elizabeth Robertsand others, and is situated in Boulder, Colorado. A 1993brochure advertising its first Summer School provided thefollowing description:

The Institute for Deep Ecology Education . . . spon-sors regional and national trainings, consults ondeep ecology curriculum and programs, and worksto build coalitions among educators, activists, andothers involved in this work. Its goal is to bring thedeep ecology perspective to the environmentaldebates of our time.

By 1996 the organization had moved to Occidental,California, shortening its name to the Institute for DeepEcology. In its Spring 1998 newsletter, the Institute’sdescription stated:

The Institute for Deep Ecology (IDE) advances aworld view based upon humanity’s fundamentalinterdependence with all life forms – a philosophycommonly known as deep ecology. IDE seeks to healthe contemporary alienation from self, community,and the earth by encouraging a fundamental shift inthe way we experience nature and respond to theenvironmental crisis.

The Institute provides transformative, action-oriented educational resources to a diverse constitu-ency. In particular, IDE hosts trainings that bringcommunity organizers, educators, psychotherapists,clergy, and others together with a large, multi-faceted faculty of prominent environmentalists.

This second description reflects a shift toward experien-tial work. In addition, certain therapeutic claims are madeconcerning the work of the Institute (“to heal the con-temporary alienation from self, community, and the Earth. . .”). In these shifts, it is possible to detect the influenceof ecopsychology, and also, a more explicit articulation ofthe spirituality common within many deep ecologicalgroups around the world.

For the first several years, the Institute sponsored work-shops and trainings in deep ecology. Many of the trainingsfeatured various teachers of deep ecology or environ-mental activists who ascribed to the principles of deepecology. In the late 1990s, the Institute went througha self-evaluation process that resulted in a shift fromsmall, workshop-styled trainings to larger conferences

460 Deep Ecology, Institute for